BUTIONG VS.
PLAZO In their Answer, petitioners denied the allegations of the complaint on
G.R. NO. 187524
AUGUST 5, 2015
RTC Jurisdiction
 FACTS:
Rifioza died intestate, leaving several heirs, including his children with
his first wife, respondents Plazo and Alaras, as well as several
properties including a resort covered by TCT, and a family home, both
located in Batangas.
In their Amended Complaint for Judicial Partition with
Annulment of Title and Recovery of Possession respondents alleged
that sometime in March 1991, they discovered that their co-heirs,
Pedro’s second wife, Benita and other children, had sold the subject
properties to petitioners, spouses Villafria and Butiong, now deceased
and substituted by their son, Dr. Ruel, without their knowledge and
consent. When confronted about the sale, Benita acknowledged the
same, showing respondents a document she believed evidenced receipt
of her share in the sale, which, however, did not refer to any sort of sale
but to a previous loan obtained by Pedro and Benita from a bank. The
document actually evidenced receipt from Banco Silangan releasing
her and her late husband’s indebtedness therefrom. Upon inquiry, the
RD of Nasugbu informed respondents that he has no record of any
transaction involving the subject properties, giving them certified true
copies of the titles to the same. When respondents went to the subject
properties, they discovered that 4 out of the 8 cottages in the resort had
been demolished. They were not, however, able to enter as the premises
were padlocked.
Subsequently, respondents learned that on July 18, 1991, a
notice of an extra-judicial settlement of estate of their late father was
published in a tabloid called Balita. Because of this, They caused the
annotation of their adverse claims over the subject properties before the
RD of Nasugbu and filed their complaint praying, among others, for
the annulment of all documents conveying the subject properties to the
petitioners and certificates of title issued pursuant thereto.
the ground of lack of personal knowledge and good faith in acquiring
the subject properties. In the course of his testimony during trial,
petitioner Francisco further contended that what they purchased was
only the resort. He also presented an Extra-Judicial Settlement with
Renunciation, Repudiations and Waiver of Rights and Sale which
provides, among others, that respondents' co-heirs sold the family
home to the spouses Bondoc for Pl million as well as a Deed of Sale
whereby Benita sold the resort to petitioners for ₱650, 000.00.
 RTC: Nullified the transfer of the subject properties to petitioners and
spouses Bondoc due to irregularities in the Documents of conveyance
offered by petitioners. Also, it is observed by the court that the
documents were never presented to the Office of the RD for
registration and that the properties are still in the names of Pedro and
Benita.
o Declared null – Extra-Judicial Settlement with Renunciation,
Repudiation and Waiver of Rights and Sale
o Ordering Defendants to vacate its premises and to deliver
possession
o Declared the plaintiffs and defendant heirs in the Amended
Complaint to be the legitimate heirs of decedent
 CA: Affirmed RTC’s judgment
Aggrieved, petitioners filed a MR raising the RTC’s lack of jurisdiction.
It was alleged that when the Complaint for Judicial Partition with
Annulment of Title and Recovery of Possession was filed, there was yet
no settlement of Pedro's estate, determination as to the nature thereof,
nor was there an identification of the number of legitimate heirs. As
such, the TC ruled on the settlement of the intestate estate of Pedro in
its ordinary· jurisdiction when the action filed was for Judicial
Partition. Considering that the instant action is really one for settlement
of intestate estate, the trial court, sitting merely in its probate
jurisdiction, exceeded its jurisdiction when it ruled upon the issues of
forgery and ownership. Thus, petitioner argued that. Said ruling is void
1
and has no effect for having been rendered without jurisdiction. The
MR was denied by the appellate court.
 ISSUE: W/N THE RTC HAS JURISDICTION OVER THE
CASE?
 RULING:
YES, It is elementary that' the active participation of a party in a case
pending against him before a court is tantamount to recognition of that
court's jurisdiction and willingness to abide by the resolution of the
case which will bar said party from later on impugning the court’s
jurisdiction. In fine, under the circumstances obtaining in this case the
Petitioners are estopped from assailing the Court a quo 's lack of
jurisdiction.
Petitioner asserts that while the complaint filed by respondents
was captioned as "Judicial Partition with Annulment of Title and
Recovery of Possession," the allegations therein show that the cause of
action is actually one for settlement of estate of decedent Pedro.
Considering that settlement of estate is a special proceeding cognizable
by a probate court of limited jurisdiction while judicial partition with
annulment of title and recovery of possession are ordinary civil actions
cognizable by a court of general jurisdiction, the trial court exceeded its
jurisdiction in entertaining the latter while it was sitting merely in its
probate jurisdiction. This is in view of the prohibition found in the
Rules on the joiner of special civil actions and ordinary civil
actions. Thus, petitioner argued that the ruling of the trial court is void
and has no effect for having been rendered in without jurisdiction.
The petition is bereft of merit. It is true that some of
respondents' causes of action pertaining to the properties left behind
by the decedent Pedro, his known heirs, and the nature and extent of
their interests thereon may fall under an action for settlement of estate.
However, a complete reading of the complaint would readily show
that, based on the nature of the suit, the allegations therein, and the
relief’s prayed for, the action, is clearly one for judicial partition with
annulment of title and recovery of possession.
Under Section 1 of Republic Act No. 7691 (RA 7691), amending
Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, the RTC shall exercise exclusive original
jurisdiction over all civil actions in which the subject of the litigation is
incapable of pecuniary estimation. Since the action herein was not
merely for partition and recovery of ownership but also for annulment
of title and documents, the action is incapable of pecuniary estimation
and thus cognizable by the RTC. Hence, considering that the trial court
clearly had jurisdiction in rendering its decision, the instant petition for
annulment of judgment must necessarily fail.
Indeed, a judgment which has acquired finality becomes
immutable and unalterable, hence, may no longer be modified in any
respect except to correct clerical errors or mistakes, all the issues
between the parties being deemed resolved and laid to rest. It is a
fundamental principle in our judicial system and essential to an
effective and efficient administration of justice that, once a judgment
has become final, the winning party be, not through a mere subterfuge,
deprived of the fruits of the verdict. Exceptions to the immutability of
final judgment are allowed only under the most extraordinary of
circumstances. Yet, when petitioner is given more than ample
opportunity to be heard, unbridled access to the appellate courts, as
well as unbiased judgments rendered after a consideration of evidence
presented by the parties, as in the case at hand, the Court shall refrain
from reversing the rulings of the courts below in the absence of any
showing that the same were rendered with fraud or lack of jurisdiction.
2